From: LISATIA@aol.com
Date: Mon Aug 14 1995 - 23:47:26 EDT
dear Roland,,
thank you for your cogent comments and intelligent remarks on Jn 1.1.
With regard to the Watchtower translation of this verse, long a cause
celebre, and object of much abuse, something should be said by an outsider in
their defense.
You yourself, I believe, brought up verse eighteen of the same chapter,
which is printed in UBS 4th ed, as: monogenos qeos ho wn eis ton kolpon tou
patros ekeinos exHgHsato, . . . the only-begotten god who is in the womb of
the father - he has explained him.
The question of the christology of the Gospel of John, and the christology
of the prologue, which may not be the same question, cannot be explained
solely on the basis of grammar.
It is entirely possible that the original theology of the prologue was of
an Arian type. This is only one of many aporiai in this Gospel which seem to
indicate that source material and the final version of this Gospel are at
variance.
dick arthur, Merrimack NH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT